Thread: Unborn Only Have Value IF

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It donned on me the other day that Unborn Only Have Value IF Valued By Mother and wanted to ask why this is acceptable.

Without delving into all the facts, many jurisdictions will charge a criminal with 2 murders if they kill a woman who is pregnant but only with 1 murder if the woman had an abortion the day before. In other words, the double standard is that if the mother kills the baby (presumably wanted by the father) it is not considered murder BUT if it is killed by a criminal it is considered murder. Can someone explain why this is acceptable?

I can't answer the question. But I have a question of my own: what if a pregnant mother is murdered on her way to have an abortion?

Would it still be a double-murder?

Originally Posted by darth omar

I can't answer the question. But I have a question of my own: what if a pregnant mother is murdered on her way to have an abortion?

Would it still be a double-murder?

I'd say no ... and the boyfriend badly miscalculated her destination.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

The analogy breaks down in two important ways. First, one home owner wants him to stay (who has a 50% equity). Second, abortion results in direct, certain death not merely the possibility that death might occur.

1. What 50% equity are you talking about? I was talking about a home with one owner, in two different situation. A: if that homeowner wanted him to stay, and B: if he didn't.

2. So what? Are you saying that if the homeowner knows the bum will die, he should be forced to keep the trespasser on his property until he changes his ways? That's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by 9aces

But the mother authorized the presence there if she voluntarily engaged in intercourse. Which is the same as inviting the bum in to stay.

The purpose of the act is reproduction, no matter what her intent may have been. Biology does not care in the least what you meant to do, only what you do.

1. Purpose is intent. They are synonyms.

2. Biology is not a person and does not have specific "intents" or "purposes." Biology is what or perhaps more accurately how we are. Some things work given that biology and some don't. Some work to an extent. From that we derive our capabilities. How we use it is entirely up to us. The fact of the matter is that our biology allows us to have sex for numerous different purposes, such as pleasure. This is why even sterile people can enjoy sex, for example. Biology still allows them to enjoy the act, just not reproduce.

The fact of the matter is that, in a given person, sex produces a number of biological effects. The effect sought by the person and the reason he had sex is his purpose for the act.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Three ways John. Voluntarily committing the act is an invitation. You can't be surprised if you find a bum in your home if you left a sign on the door "come on in", the door is open".

So if she didn't hang that sign up next to her vagina, then there is no invitation? Okay.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Or perhaps that's why he did.

Then why did he give sterile people the continued ability to derive pleasure from it? Surely if reproduction is the only purpose of sex, then it would stop being enjoyable in the event of sterility, right?

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Not in mine he didnt.

You have no prostate? Missing your semen factory must really put a damper on your love life!

Originally Posted by thanatos144

If God didn't make it fun why would you reproduce????????????The object is to go forth and multiply so it stands the reason since he wants you to make babies he would make it enjoyable.....

So whatever any human enjoys is God's will?

Originally Posted by Slon

So if she didn't hang that sign up next to her vagina, then there is no invitation? Okay.

Consenting the act is turning on the "Vacancy" light.

Originally Posted by Slon

Then why did he give sterile people the continued ability to derive pleasure from it? Surely if reproduction is the only purpose of sex, then it would stop being enjoyable in the event of sterility, right?

Reproduction is the purpose of the act. Not the only effect of the act (pleasure), but the purpose. A person my be infertile, but that doesn't change the reason the act exists biologically. You're trying to take a species requirement, and translate it down to the individual to try and invalidate it for the species. Which as we've seen from your pitiful attempts at arguing a human being is equal to a bag of marbles doesn't work.

Originally Posted by michael h

I'd say no ... and the boyfriend badly miscalculated her destination.

Good enough. That question was making my brain hurt.

Originally Posted by Slon

1. What 50% equity are you talking about? I was talking about a home with one owner, in two different situation. A: if that homeowner wanted him to stay, and B: if he didn't.

The other parent is the 50% equity owner in this analogy.

Originally Posted by Slon

2. So what? Are you saying that if the homeowner knows the bum will die, he should be forced to keep the trespasser on his property until he changes his ways? That's ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous to point out the actions (of abortion or murdering a pregnant mother) result in more than a possibility of death. The so what is the value of the unborn is ONLY when the mother places value on the unborn as in this scenario the 50% equity owner of the house wants the trespasser to stay, knowing the alternative is not merely death to some trespassing stranger but death to his own flesh and blood.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It donned on me the other day that Unborn Only Have Value IF Valued By Mother and wanted to ask why this is acceptable.

Without delving into all the facts, many jurisdictions will charge a criminal with 2 murders if they kill a woman who is pregnant but only with 1 murder if the woman had an abortion the day before. In other words, the double standard is that if the mother kills the baby (presumably wanted by the father) it is not considered murder BUT if it is killed by a criminal it is considered murder. Can someone explain why this is acceptable?

Because a zygote and a womb are what it takes to make a human baby.
The zygote alone is insufficient, and is therefore not considered a person.

Originally Posted by goober

Because a zygote and a womb are what it takes to make a human baby.
The zygote alone is insufficient, and is therefore not considered a person.

Then why is the criminal charged with two murders?

Originally Posted by Slon

1. Purpose is intent. They are synonyms.

Not to Biology, see below.

Originally Posted by Slon

2. Biology is not a person and does not have specific "intents" or "purposes." Biology is what or perhaps more accurately how we are. Some things work given that biology and some don't. Some work to an extent. From that we derive our capabilities. How we use it is entirely up to us. The fact of the matter is that our biology allows us to have sex for numerous different purposes, such as pleasure. This is why even sterile people can enjoy sex, for example. Biology still allows them to enjoy the act, just not reproduce.

Biology does indeed have specific intents and purposes. You almost got it right when you stated Biology is how we are. There is one way, one only for the homo sapiens species to naturally reproduce. There are many ways for them to enjoy things.

Originally Posted by Slon

The fact of the matter is that, in a given person, sex produces a number of biological effects. The effect sought by the person and the reason he had sex is his purpose for the act.

And the reasons they do so are completely irrelevant. Biology does not care in the least what they think, or intended.